Absence of departmental muster rolls cannot be a ground to deny wages for work extracted from daily wagers.

The applicant was engaged as a daily wager (Helper) in the PHE Department in May 2007 and claims continuous service for over eleven years.

He alleged that the respondents stopped releasing his wages from March 2014, with some minor exceptions in 2018.

He sought release of unpaid wages and regularization of service under the J&K Casual and Other Workers Regular Engagement Rules, 2017.

The respondents resisted the claim, arguing that wages could not be released because the "muster sheets"—the primary record of attendance maintained by the department—were unavailable at the Sub-Divisional Office.

The matter was transferred from the High Court of J&K to the CAT.

1. Whether the respondents can deny wages to a worker for work extracted merely on the ground that the department's internal record (muster sheets) is not traceable.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization of service based on his term of engagement.

The court applied the principle of the "Model Employer," which dictates that the State cannot take advantage of its own negligence or failure to maintain records to deny legitimate dues to a worker.

The court further relied on the doctrine of Lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform), noting that a daily wager cannot be burdened with producing official documents held exclusively by the employer.

The court held that non-payment for work extracted violates legal and constitutional rights.

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondents did not explicitly deny the applicant's engagement or claim he was formally terminated; they merely cited the loss of muster rolls.

The Tribunal held that since muster rolls are maintained by departmental officers (Junior and Assistant Executive Engineers), the workman cannot suffer for the department's lapse in record-keeping.

To require a worker at the lowest rung of service to produce records he never possessed would be "arbitrary and unfair".

The Tribunal emphasized that engagement status should be verified through collateral evidence such as wage registers, hand receipts, and certifications from supervisory officers rather than relying solely on missing muster sheets.

Regarding regularization, the Tribunal noted it remains subject to specific policy fulfillment and verification of full service particulars by the competent authority.

The respondents were ordered to reconstruct the records using collateral departmental evidence and were forbidden from rejecting the claim solely based on missing muster sheets.

If not paid within three months, the amount shall carry 6% interest per annum.

The prayer for regularization was left open for the applicant to pursue under applicable rules.

The Contempt Petition (CP 259/2025) was disposed of with liberty to revive if the directions are not followed.